When visions of the future clash

WASHINGTON: Two very different visions of America are locked in a contest for the soul of this country. What kind of nation should it be, say, 30 years from now; what would it look like; and what values should it endorse? A debate now rages.

Come November, the presidential election will indicate the direction in which a current majority of Americans would like to go. And since this still is the richest and most powerful nation on earth, that popular choice will matter for the rest of us.

Last week, the Republican Party had a national convention in which its members nominated Mitt Romney as its presidential candidate. This week, the Democratic Party’s convention nominated Barack Obama for a second term as president. The two conventions were starkly different in tone, appearance and substance. The Republican gathering was overwhelmingly white, Christian and Anglo-Saxon despite an array of speakers from different backgrounds on stage; the Democratic one was multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-hued and that was just the visible difference.

The two parties stand far apart from each other in worldview, values and attitude towards government. Today’s Republicans, who call themselves conservative, are in fact radical-right in their ideology. It’s not in their almost dogmatic championing of free markets alone; after all, the Democrats are not against free, but in favour of watchfully regulated, markets. The Republicans actually want a drastic reduction in the powers of government, by which they mean the federal government since they favour an increase in states’ rights. The Democrats believe a strong federal government is essential for maintaining national cohesion as well as a level playing field.

To this outsider looking in, the argument over the size and powers of the federal government camouflages two fundamentally different visions of what America should be a few decades from now. The Republican Party, as it stands today, voices the increasing alarm of those who believe that they, their kinfolk and their co-believers built this nation, which is now under threat of takeover by culturally alien, ethnically different minorities and they want to push back the possibility of such an outcome. The Democrats, on the other hand, accept an evolving reality of global economic and demographic patterns and would like all citizens, present and future, to embrace diversity as long as they all share the values affirmed in the Constitution.

Almost all their differences boil down to an attitude towards evolving change in society. Points of conflict range from economic and fiscal policies through women’s rights, religious belief and sexual preference to science and human evolution itself.

The differences are even noticeable in trivial pursuits. A recent Scarborough Research consumer survey of 2,00,000 adults suggests that Republicans and Democrats tend to get information, shop and entertain themselves differently.

For example, Democrats are more inclined towards doing yoga, visiting art shows, buying eco-friendly products, watching MTV, Comedy Central, Oscars and Grammy awards than are Republicans. Their news sources also tend to be different. And that creates nearly exclusive echo chambers of opinion. If you watch Fox News and listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio shows you are likely to be a Republican. If you are a fan of MSNBC, or even CNN, you are probably a Democrat. The twain rarely meet.

Be that as it may, the ongoing debate is engrossing. Opinion polls say almost all Americans, maybe over 90% of the electorate, have made up their minds one way or the other for November’s election. Only around 5 or 6% remain to be convinced. The fight in the remaining time will be over these undecided few.

The argument is relevant for all democratic nations of significant size. In Europe, for instance, this issue of a monochromatic versus a varied national cultural identity these days frequently leads to confrontations, some of which turn violent.

In India, we have been debating the matter over six decades. We have a most unusual national experiment on hand. Arguably, no democratic republic ever has held as much linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity as India has.

As we move on, do we see ourselves 30 years from now as a united nation reflecting a dominant personality built on a singular tradition? Or do we reaffirm our secular diversity in a more resolute and impartial manner than we have so far?

DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own.

Author

Gautam Adhikari is a Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. He has been Executive Editor of The Times of India. He was the founding Editor of DNA (Daily News & Analysis), Mumbai, and has served in the World Bank in Washington DC as a Senior Consultant. His books include The Intolerant Indian: Why We Must Rediscover A Liberal Space (2011) and Rolling Stones: Selected Writings (2009).

Gautam Adhikari is a Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. He has been Executive Editor of The Times of India. He was the foundin. . .

From around the web

More from The Times of India

Comments

Top Comment

()

Author

Gautam Adhikari is a Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. He has been Executive Editor of The Times of India. He was the founding Editor of DNA (Daily News & Analysis), Mumbai, and has served in the World Bank in Washington DC as a Senior Consultant. His books include The Intolerant Indian: Why We Must Rediscover A Liberal Space (2011) and Rolling Stones: Selected Writings (2009).

Gautam Adhikari is a Senior Fellow at Center for American Progress in Washington, DC. He has been Executive Editor of The Times of India. He was the foundin. . .